In today's complex and rapidly evolving work environments, organizations continually seek effective strategies to enhance safety, improve performance, and cultivate a culture of engagement and accountability. While many companies invest heavily in technology and systems to mitigate risk, one of the most powerful and sustainable approaches remains underutilized: applying the science of human behavior. Understanding how to manage behaviors effectively is often the missing link for many organizations, providing a significant competitive advantage in any industry.
Human behavior is central to nearly every aspect of organizational performance. Every day, countless behaviors are required to achieve the results necessary for a company to thrive. Successful business outcomes depend on individuals executing the right tasks at the right time. Therefore, it is essential to identify the critical behaviors that contribute to key performance indicators and to evaluate how consistently these behaviors are performed.
In the context of safety, understanding human behavior is particularly crucial because the vast majority of workplace incidents—up to 90% by some estimates—can be traced back to human actions, according to the Heinrich Triangle study. Unfortunately, many incident investigation reports conclude with the root cause being labeled as “employee error.” With a deeper understanding of human behavior, however, the analysis begins.
Since the early 1970s, Behavior-Based Safety (BBS), a proactive process for changing at-risk behaviors into safe behaviors before incidents occur, has introduced the basic laws of human behavior and why people behave in certain ways. The most effective BBS processes are designed based on the science of behavior research known as behavior analysis. The closer a BBS process is aligned with science, the better the results are achieved.
While a full BBS implementation can yield significant benefits, organizations can still achieve safety improvements through skillful and targeted behavioral applications. It starts with an understanding of how behavior is learned, maintained, and changed.
One of the most perplexing questions in the workplace is why an employee might violate a safety rule shortly after receiving training on proper procedures. The instinctive reaction is often to blame the worker. However, unraveling this mystery requires a shift in perspective. Dr. Aubrey C. Daniels, Ph.D., founder of Aubrey Daniels International and a pioneer in the performance management and behavioral safety space, succinctly states, "People do what they do because of what happens to them when they do it." This single statement highlights that behavior is influenced primarily by its consequences within the environment.
Over a century of research has led to the development of the ABC model (Antecedent-Behavior-Consequence model), which provides a framework for understanding why people behave in specific ways and how to change their behavior effectively. The ABC model analyzes current behavior in its natural environment, continuously from the perspective of the individual performing the action.
This refers to what occurs before a behavior and tells a person what to do or how to act in a certain way. In terms of safety, these can include policies, training, work rules, instructions, and signs, among others. While antecedents are crucial for individuals who may not know what to do or how to do it, they are often insufficient and unreliable on their own for sustaining behavior over time. In essence, antecedents instruct people what to do, but they don’t make them do it. Unfortunately, there is often an over-reliance on antecedents in safety management.
This refers to the specific action or response that follows a particular antecedent. It can manifest as either a desired safe behavior or an at-risk behavior.
These are the outcomes that occur as a result of or following the behavior. They can be perceived as positive or negative by the individual and significantly influence whether the behavior will be repeated in the future. Generally, people are inclined to repeat behaviors that yield pleasant experiences, such as receiving praise, saving time, or avoiding injuries, and to avoid those that result in unpleasant experiences, such as receiving reprimands, incurring delays, or experiencing injuries. While antecedents initiate behavior, it is the consequences that determine whether those behaviors will persist. Unfortunately, there is often an underutilization and misapplication of consequences in safety management.
While there is much to learn about the ABC model, research clearly shows that consequences have the most significant impact on behavior. Unfortunately, many organizations tend to apply consequences primarily when individuals engage in unsafe practices, such as ignoring safety rules or exhibiting at-risk behaviors. Although a disciplinary process is necessary, relying solely on negative consequences without incorporating positive ones for safe behaviors will hinder performance. As a result, safe behaviors may only occur when someone is monitoring compliance.
Why do individuals engage in at-risk behaviors? The natural antecedents and consequences present in their immediate work environment shape the behaviors that emerge. If these factors are not actively managed, meaningful change will not occur.
When we apply this model to the scenario where an employee violates a safety rule, it becomes clear that simply blaming the individual is ineffective. Instead, we must examine the consequences that reinforce at-risk behaviors within the work environment. For instance, consider an employee working on the top step of a ladder. From their perspective, they are saving time by using the closest ladder, making the task easier by avoiding the hassle of transporting a larger ladder, or relying on past experiences where they completed the task without incident. To the employee, these are experienced as positive, immediate and certain consequences.
However, the consequences extend beyond the individual’s immediate experience. If a supervisor fails to notice the unsafe behavior, they may inadvertently reinforce it by later praising the employee for completing the job quickly at the end of the shift. Regardless of the training or safety messages the employee receives about ladder safety, their at-risk behavior will persist as long as the environmental consequences remain unchanged.
Conversely, simply stopping an at-risk behavior is insufficient to promote safe practices. It is essential to identify the reasons why safe behaviors are not being performed by examining the consequences that may be unintentionally discouraging them. In our ladder example, if the employee is required to use the correct ladder without any adjustments to their environment, they may face negative consequences such as increased time to retrieve the appropriate ladder, greater physical effort to carry it, and potential questioning from the supervisor about delays in completing the task. Without removing these barriers and adding positive consequences to support the safe behavior, the environment rarely improves.
This situation illustrates a consequence dilemma: many at-risk behaviors are reinforced by positive consequences, while safe behaviors are often undermined by negative ones (it usually takes longer and is more cumbersome to follow safety rules).
Returning to the ladder example, rearranging the consequences within the work environment is crucial for increasing the frequency of desired behaviors and decreasing the frequency of unwanted ones. This involves a strategic review of the current consequences in place for this behavior. Are enough ladders available and conveniently located when needed? Are the proper ladders in place to do the job safely? Can the task be redesigned to eliminate the need for a ladder? If such changes are not feasible, managers and supervisors should actively seek and provide positive feedback for safe behaviors to demonstrate their commitment to valuing safety, even if it means slowing down work processes.
Additionally, evaluating the antecedents could reveal further changes that are needed. Was the employee trained on ladder safety? Was the training effective? Do they know where to find the appropriate ladder? This scenario highlights the need to link together the safety antecedents of using ladders correctly with positive consequences.
When this approach becomes the standard response to at-risk behaviors or incidents, it fosters an environment where halting an at-risk behavior leads to a thorough investigation of the antecedents and consequences that support that behavior, as well as the barriers preventing safe practices. This process enables organizations to implement meaningful and lasting changes. As a result, blame is replaced with understanding, and employees become more engaged and trusting.
Understanding the consequences of behavior is crucial, particularly the power of reinforcement. Reinforcement is defined as a consequence that strengthens the behavior it follows. This means that all behaviors occurring in the moment—whether safe or unsafe—are being reinforced to continue. If a behavior does not repeat, it is not considered a form of reinforcement.
In behavioral science, two types of reinforcement increase the frequency of behavior: positive and negative reinforcement.
This is a consequence that follows a behavior and adds positive outcomes or payoffs. When an individual performs a behavior and finds the task easier or more comfortable, these experiences serve as positive reinforcers, encouraging the continuation of that behavior.
To effectively promote safe behaviors, positive reinforcement must be intentionally incorporated into the safe behaviors within the environment. Left to its natural state, the environment may inadvertently reinforce at-risk behaviors, as they tend to produce payoffs that save time and effort.
Unfortunately, many people misunderstand and misuse positive reinforcement, often equating it solely with superficial praise, recognition, or a simple pat on the back. Over time, this can harm relationships and organizational culture.
Effective positive reinforcers should make specific behaviors easier and more rewarding for the individual. These reinforcers can come from various sources within the environment, including work processes, procedures, equipment, tools, organizational systems, and feedback from managers and supervisors. By incorporating these types of positive reinforcers, organizations can significantly increase the likelihood that safe behaviors will be maintained over time, even in the absence of supervision. Ultimately, positive reinforcement is essential for achieving high levels of performance, fostering long-lasting safe habits, and cultivating a positive safety culture.
When it is not feasible to remove barriers or implement physical or systemic positive consequences to support safe behaviors, social positive reinforcement becomes essential. While a simple pat on the back can suffice, it must be sincere and meaningful for the recipient to perceive it as genuine reinforcement. This necessitates developing the skill of observation to identify and acknowledge safe behaviors when they occur.
Although it may seem straightforward, recognizing and affirming someone for performing a specific behavior correctly can be one of the most powerful forms of reinforcement they receive. Often, these positive actions go unnoticed and are taken for granted, making acknowledgment all the more impactful.
This is a consequence that follows a behavior and removes negative outcomes or threats. In this case, an individual may engage in a safe behavior to avoid an unpleasant consequence, such as receiving disciplinary action or a speeding ticket. While negative reinforcement can produce just enough safe behavior to avoid punishment, it often leads to a return to at-risk behaviors as soon as the threat is removed, such as using the top step of a ladder when the supervisor is not present or speeding when the police officer is out of sight.
Without a deliberate understanding and application of positive reinforcement, many organizations inadvertently default to a culture of negative reinforcement. This enforcement strategy relies on the constant presence of punishment threats to encourage safe behaviors, ultimately creating an environment of fear and mistrust. In this context, managers and supervisors may unknowingly act as negative reinforcers if they fail to implement positive reinforcement strategies.
Both positive and negative reinforcement are effective strategies for shaping behavior; however, understanding the differences between them and knowing when to apply each is essential. Research indicates that organizations that prioritize positive reinforcement over negative reinforcement, typically maintaining a ratio of 4:1, create environments that foster desired behaviors, engagement, and trust.1
Organizations can learn to apply behavioral technology in many ways. As with any new initiative, leadership commitment and alignment at all levels is required to be the most effective. Here are some key actions to consider:
Create a plan to remove the barriers and add strategic positive reinforcements from various sources to prompt and reinforce the safe behaviors and discourage the at-risk behaviors. Then evaluate the impact this has on the behavior and adjust as needed. The behavior that is occurring will tell if your strategies are working or not.
Safe behaviors should receive positive feedback to let a person know you see their safe behavior and you appreciate it. At-risk behaviors should receive constructive feedback that interrupts the behavior. This creates an opportunity to briefly engage the individual in a productive conversation about why the safe behavior is essential and to discover any barriers they may have to performing it that can be addressed. If there are no barriers, then the feedback serves as a reminder to them that you care about their safety and that safety is important and valued. When done correctly and consistently, organizations can create a culture of feedback that is welcomed by everyone, helping to influence future choices rather than relying on enforcement strategies. In turn, this tends to reduce the need for discipline.
Applying behavioral science principles to safety and operational excellence is not just a strategy; it is a transformative approach that can significantly enhance organizational performance. By understanding the dynamics of human behavior and the critical role of reinforcement, organizations can create environments that promote safe practices and foster a culture of engagement and accountability.
As leaders commit to observing behaviors, providing meaningful feedback, and implementing positive reinforcement, they will not only reduce at-risk behaviors but also cultivate trust and collaboration among employees. Ultimately, embracing these principles will lead to a safer workplace, improved performance, and a sustainable culture of safety that benefits everyone involved.
Agnew, J. and Daniels, A Safe by Accident? Take the Luck out of Safety. Performance Management Publications, 2010.
Agnew, J., A Supervisor’s Guide to Safety Leadership. Performance Management Publications, 2016.
Daniels, Aubrey C. Bringing Out the Best in People: How to Apply Behavioral Science for a Better Workplace. Performance Management Publications, 2006.
https://www.aubreydaniels.com/about/science
https://www.abainternational.org/about-us/behavior-analysis.aspx
Beth Adams
Vice President
Resource Consulting Manager
McGriff Risk Control
